Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.

The vast majority of Western atheists believe that the theory of evolution is a fact and that evolution shaped human morality. But this "science" places no compulsion on a human being to conform to any moral code and morality can be literally anything you want it to be. For example, one could argue from "science" that a human being has no more worth than a bug, so if killing a bug isn't immoral, then neither is killing a human being.

It's quite simple: "Science" says blind, meaningless evolution mindlessly produced millions of biological machines - from teeny weeny little bugs to human beings. So, the only difference between a bug machine and a human being machine is the degree of complexity in the arrangement of their respective atoms. One bunch of arranged atoms is no more important than any other bunch of arranged atoms and no biological machine is any more important than any other biological machine. All life is meaningless and meaninglessly produced, so one form of life has no more meaning or worth than any other form of life. Therefore a human being - a meaningless machine - has no more worth or meaning than a bug - another meaningless machine.

The morals of societies are formed from the morality of individuals. If enough people share the same moral stance on something, then collectively they might have the power to impose their version of morality on the rest of your society, despite opposition from other members of that society.The morality of some non-democratic societies are formed by the morality of a few or even one individual. If you lived in Hitler's society, for example, it would be legal (morally acceptable) to murder a Jew. If you live in ISIS society it is legal (morally acceptable) to murder an infidel or a homosexual. In Hindu society, killing a cow and earing it will likely get you lynched by an enraged mob.In other words, morality varies from person to person, from culture to culture and from time to time. So, in effect, morality can be whatever you want it to be, whether it be on an individual basis or societal basis.

My point is, an atheist who believes that evolution is a scientific fact cannot argue that a human life is worth more than a life of a bug - because to do so is to contradcit the very science he holds to be true.Such an atheist must also accept that since life is the product of a blind, meaningless process, life itself is meaningless. So he cannot argue that his life has meaning because to do so is to contradict the very science he holds to be true.

If human life is the result of evolution, then everything pertaining to humanity behaviour must be the result of evolution. Therefore morality is the result of evolution (where else could it have come from? God?). But if human behaviour is the result of natural selection, is it not morality, because natural selective offers no choice. Therein lies the contradiction.

PaulK: "If evolution places constraints on what human morality could be then it cannot be "literally anything you want it to be"".If evolution places constraints of what human morality could be, then it is not morality; it is simply being forced into conforming to a certain pattern of behaviour. This is no different to dog learning that if it doesn't crap in the master's house, it won't be punished.Some environmentalist lunatic might believe that human pollution is destroying the earth, so for the sake of the planet he starts murdering folks who drive cars. Back in the 1940s, an anti-semite in Germany thought that eradicating Jews would be good for mankind, so he murdered six million of them in gas chambers. In other words, morality can be whatever you want it to be.----------------------------------------------PaulK: "Which would show no understanding of the relevant science or morality".How can you use science to show that the life of a human is worth more than the life of a bug?

New Cat's Eye: "Given the chemistry involved, some the things-that-happen would be inevitable".Do you realise that if this is true, it is an argument for design?------------------------------I would think it impossible for "selective pressures" to produce morality and "learned behaviours" are not necessarily morality. Selective pressures can only produce modes of behaviour that one is forced into conforming to, and learned behaviour is something any dog can do.So I doubt if evolution can produce any morality at all. But Darwinist can by-pass this argument by resorting to circular reasoning: "But morality exists, therefore evolution MUST have produced it!"

Some evolutionists argue that evolution is not based on chance and luck, but on natural selection. But this is at least half-nonsense because the mutations that arise (which are then subjected to natural selection) are a result of pure accident - sheer chance and luck, in other words.

When you refer to the "slavery" mentioned in the Bible, it could refer to a very kind of slavery experienced by blacks in the US, for example, which was mostly chattel slavery. In Australia, the armed forces impose a form of slavery on most of it members - once they sign up, they cannot leave the service for an alloted number of years - they are "owned" by the goverment for those years. This is a form of "indentured" slavery that was commonplace centuries ago and is also found in the Bible. The slavery experienced by the Israelites under the Egyptians was a different form of slavery again.

A human being has the capacity to formulate a personal code of morality, but if you think the human race is going to formulate a communal code of morality that pleases everyone, you are dreaming. Eradicating religion won't solve the problem, either.--------------------------------------------------------If all religions are false, then the morality of those religions is not the morality of any God, but really just morality invented by humans - in which case, there is no reason to suppose that religious morality is any better or worse than the morality invented by non-religious folks, since all are expressions of human morality. For example, many religious teach that homosexuality is morally wrong. But if religion is a human construct, then this religious anti-homosexual morality is also a human construct. So if anti-homosexual morality and pro-homosexual morality are both invented by humans, how can you decide which morality is the correct one?

Phat: "Can anyone think of morals that society intrinsically knows to be true yet rountinely ignores or rejects?"Yes. Abortion is murder. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

Yes, okay; an atheist can argue that a human is of more worth than a bug, but his argument is based on nothing more his own opinion, an opinion that isn't supported by science. In fact, science opposes his opinion; science implies that one form of life is no more important than any other form of life. To claim that the life of human being is worth more than the life of a bug is to be unscientific. As an atheist once told me, "We're just grubs.".If one opines that a human life is worth more than the life of a bug, which part of science says this opinionis correct?-------------------------------------------If life is the result of a series of random accidents that happened to arrange a bunch of atoms into the form of a living, self-replicating machine - which is basically what science teaches - then life has no meaning at all. Life comes from nothing and goes back to nothing - so it is nothing. Aperson can believe that his life has meaning, but science implies that such a belief is nothing more than a delusion. If the life of a human being has meaning, then it can have no more meaning than the life of a mosquito.

I take your point. But a fly would choose the manure over the gold. So worth is subjective. I would consider that a side of beef has a lot of worth, but a vegan would find it worthless. Adolf Hitler believed the life of a Jew had no value. If an atheist wants to oppose Hitler's opinion, he has only his own opinion to do it with - science doesn't offer any advice on who is worthy of life and who isn't. In fact, Hitler could use science as an excuse to do whatever he wants - he could argue that science says all life is the result of a meaningless accident, therefore all life is meaningless, so killing Jews is meaningless.

Dr. Adequate is a walking lie-detector. And he can sniff out a liar from milles away - and they're everywhere!

If a Buddhist has to run, how will he be able to sweep fast enough to clear all the bugs away? If a Buddhist drives a car, how will he able to sweep all the bugs away from all the wheels? These are profound questions, to be sure.